Really not so great, actually really bad

[jimh]

Lets start from my perspective  I spent an adult life in naval service, doing this for real. I have served on nuclear cruser, Large amphip (small carrier), fast combat support, 2 Nuc aircraft carriers ( Enterprise and GW) and a DD in a warfighting rate. I lived in CIC.    I had high hopes this would be a good tactical simulation requiring realistic tactics and not a typical   PlayStation BS game.

 

These are my thoughts...

1. Hire a retired naval officer as an technical tactical  adviser. 

This game has serious  tactical  deficiencies, no one with an ounce of experience can take some of the "Naval Academy" missios  as anything other then a bad joke by someone who knows nothing.  No officer in any real navy would command and take a major capital ship i.e. high end BB  1BB vs   3BB, 5 heavies, and 5 destroyer.   you cannot if invincible hold enough ordnance to accomplish that sinking them all .   fact is    This would never happen, ever.   not even close to realism (is the a john wick BB)    And no Naval command would place someone in charge who was so stupid to try.     The only thing remotely close would be the Bismark break-out ( she had CA PE with her, and they were not tasked with engaging and destroy the British navy)  they were tasked to break contact  and  avoid the main fleet and do commerce raiding,  they failed, Bis managed to sink the hood but was damaged enough for a mission kill,   was forced to return to port from damage we all know the stories ending.    When heavily outnumbered you disengage and run like hell   except the most  unique situations (e.g. Battle off Samar).  That isn't an academy mission it was getting caught with their pants down and trying not to be killed en mass.  This requires bb john wick and about as real .   

2. No ship is constructed or for that matter refit  for 1 specific mission, none ever.  Capital ships takes years to make and are major investments,  (other battleforce ships are not  cheap for that matter ) all ships are designed with numerous missions in mind.  and they are made well rounded,  maybe campaign mode with address this the NA should support that theory

3. I won't rant too much on the bugs,   i have seen and others have noted,   battery fire, fleets that  cant maneuver or hold station (tip allow the "admiral to assign  ship stations there is more to driving then line  abrest or line a stern  ) don't spin circles, run into each other and otherwise be usless.  torps that never shoot. but are deadly accurate  from max range,   don't start a long rang battle between heavies at 18km no one spams in at 18k with heavies, scrap the clock it isn;t a race, this isn't a video game  let us close maneuver and try gain advantage

 

4  ditch the AI building crap ships  use period class  models ie BB  CA  DD MTB etc  there are thousands to choose from. they were build as they were for sound reasons and it would be realistic.  

5. Check the combat calculator for buggs,  I have experienced on 5 occasions out of like 9 being engaged at +26km and the opposition scoring multi  1st salvo hits... seriously  the first shots are fired to bracket and deliberately fired at different elevations to range you  only when ranged do salvo togeather  you don't get 2-3 on target from a cold tube.  anyone that lucky needs to go to Vegas or Monte-carlo.  

 

There is much i could like about this game, graphics are great,  some battles  seem reasonably viable and enjoyably challenging .  Others are garbage.  there is no joy or challenge to be forced to play an unplayable sim.    dump the junk get real and you could  have something worth of my time and  money.  

 

 

 

[madham82]

LOL I love the John Wick BB analogy. I completely agree with the NA missions. I have stopped playing them completely, especially after the recent progress wipe.  

[jimh]

John Wick can kill 3 BB with a pencil,  that's it!  i need 10 pencil main batteries. 

Seriously I want to like this sim (i won't call it a game) but it is so frustrating.

Buggie as a 6 week old rotten apple. , last night 5 dd allowed to be blown to bits never firing a torp at 5km from apposing bb who is beat to a pulp,     i take local control  shoot shoot shoot and nothing not 1 torp  leaves a tube for 15 min  and they become iron bottom sound.  WTF.  i wasted 3 hours setting up and playing for that.   

today suddenly secondaries won't attach in pairs  port and stbd, ok That is new  I am like WTF. 

 

Old Sailors are direct (it isn't personal or rude)  when i say ur father is your uncle and ur mom is your aunt  i am being rude

[HailCOBRALA]

Yup, if they don't start improving things, automatic downvote on steam. You HAVE to invest in your game if you want your money back, devs. 

[arkhangelsk]

On 10/30/2021 at 9:38 AM, jimh said:

1. Hire a retired naval officer as an technical tactical  adviser. 

Your proposal re the Naval Academy will ruin what it is trying to accomplish. Naval Academy is just that ... teaching you about the game. It's title is not "Single Missions". The scenarios are going to be unrealistically tough, though maybe they might just happen in campaign if you are a weak sea power who unfortunately gets into a fight with the strongest sea power.

What a player needs to learn is a) what the game thinks is a good ship for any particular task, b) once you actually start fighting what tactics to use. Getting a feel for the interrelationship between distance, your own hit rate using your limited ammo and the enemy's ability to hurt you and c) practicing retaining enough situational awareness to dodge those torpedoes before they smack your ship and rob it of a chunk of speed.

To do this, the missions are deliberately made hard. As the missions get harder, the number of solutions that will put you in the winning zone reduces. That forces you to learn the game's "scoring matrix", so to speak. If they give you something so you can just scribble a "general-purpose" ship + safe tactics and still win, you learn nothing. In fact, you'll retain bad habits because you can get away with them.

If you can't even design a ship and tactical solution for one fixed (within the game's randomization of the enemy's assets) task, what makes you think you'll do very well in "the real world"?

[jimh]

Ahhh as I said  that was my  profession " in the Real world'  AKA training wargaming  deploying  (with real ships and crews and planes)  to fight our ship,  CVBG / SAG against other real world navies (it was the cold war) ..  not a game

No  where in the real world would would 1 bb engage 4 bb, 4ca and 5 dd with orders to kill them all.    this is playstation... 

some education  in 1941  there were a total of 9 battleships in the entire pacific  ocean for the US    3 divisions  of 3bb and their escorts 

the specific mission was was 1 ship v heavy sag    and no one outside a loony bin would think this is learning.  I cannot take someone serious who does not get that.  if you cannot understand  that I can not explain it.   

there can be challenging engagement to be sure,  but teach people to learn what really happens  not some  crazy BS.   why not warp in some klingons too what the hell.   

ships are designed with many missions to be conducted they are well rounded, or they don't survive the real world.  armor vs speed thing always opposing each other    they have secondaries, AAA  , and all the rest,   1bb vs 1bb why add a torp belt? it is a slug fest  but a real bb worried about pesky destroyers, mtb and subs, and aircraft too they have  AAA  on every spare inch  for them pesky planes,    you don't refit a ship per mission.  you form a group each with straights and weaknesses, and that coms to menuvering not just abrest or in line

 

in real naval combat he find the other 1st get to an advantageous  position, and exploits it and hits first will normally win 7out of 10 times . history is full of examples,   you fight  to sink ships while  not getting sunk . 

so excuse me if an old salior get testy being told about how to be a play salior,   I was a salior. I rode ships  if i see BS i am calling it.   i have  seen and  touched a real live  16 inch warshot as well are real   5 inc or torp,  I mean live  not a museum piece or display?  I mean the kind that go boom.   I have steamed in a group with the real live  NJ in the real ocean and seen her on the gun range popping volkswagans.      I have also had long chats with my dad one sailor to another  he was in WII was a pointer on a 5/38"  on a dd  was  in the slot at the canal,  the turkey shoot, and had 7 battle star from major battles in the pacific. well you get the idea.

 

That said,  i don;t know everything, i was not an engineer or gunner, i didn't design ships,  i used what i was given. i is interesting playing with the different compromises  but only when you employ them vs realistic adversaries...  in realistic situations   other wise drop a buck and head for the mall....    

 I have walked enough decks closed enough WTD and steamed enough oceans to know a clown ship when i see one  and what isn't realistic. 

All said I do not hate this sim, not at all...   I just have high expectations, there is possibilities here   big ones.   i was sold a "realistic sim"  that is what I am asking for.  It is my hope they make it so

hey even hollywood gets expert  advisors for military film, for a reason,  they know movies but don' bolt from a bullet  (as we have recently seen) the experts keep it believable...

Edited October 31, 2021 by jimh

[Tousansons]

5 hours ago, arkhangelsk said:

Naval Academy is just that ... teaching you about the game.

Yes, but not really in their current state.

Later naval academy teaches the bad habit of designing very specific ships for very specific encounters. Unless your navy have some unlimited funds and some pretty advanced GPS by the year 1900, I don't think you can reliably choose what ship fight what. Hence the need for designs that work well against a general idea of the enemy.

It's not bad if you want some limited action, removed from a grander scheme. Some designs can get pretty wild/stupids. But I don't see these missions as good teaching materials.

On 10/30/2021 at 3:38 AM, jimh said:

I had high hopes this would be a good tactical simulation requiring realistic tactics and not a typical   PlayStation BS game.

This was not advertised as such, was it?

It's a strategy game, with realistic elements (like damage models/balistics, etc) We can argue about what feel realistic (there's enough pages of researched historical values posted here already) and I completly agree with the need to remove AI designed ships or as stated above with the strange nature of naval academy. But Since the beginning I was never under the impression UA:D will be some kind of tactical simulation requiring wargame tried tactics or intricate naval college knowledge to succeed. I'm sorry.

[jimh]

Not to  SPOILED SPORT,,, they advertised realistic no less the 13 times  in 1 of the pages...

 

the sim isn;t horrible it has promase  I do not hate it, i am frustrated by it, some are bugs that will hopefully be addressed,

I am frustrated with very poor mission design  that are more arcade like then sim like an equovlent would be  like a f16 1v10 going yea let engages  unless the goal is get killed...

i agree here witth you designs can have  different priorities or philosophies armor /speed, tech etc  but they should be expected to combat normal ships in a varity of situations  ships are not made for a specif mission  then scraped or remofiied for the next,      they are not sent to do the impossible and not do the unrealistic or impossible,,,

 

some ideas 

before launch a short breif or allow to see the screenset up your desired  formations   stations  keeping  set up up your divisions before shell are dropping then sail into battle

start at longer distance dont spam at 18km   you can speed up time if that is an issue,  allow to maneuver    into battle  don't  juts drop into one with shells flying   what were the lookouts and radar op asleep?

better ai station keeping and engagement 

1st shots are ranging and bracketing before full batteries fire  or you waste ammo   no one hits 2-3 on a 1st shot at long range,  

build real type ships if aI cannot or pull ai from a libary of classes... no clown ships

if in an overwhelmed mission  1 v 3many when ur out gunned and ot classed escape and evasion  and survive is winning 

ships are generalists what u tailor is the force composition to the intell  one of these 2 of thoses  etc... to make a force for the task at hand. (this maybe more campain  mode.

the achemedy should build ships, different mission and choosing realistic force compasition same as a camping just simpler  

 

war at sea is chess with ships...   they have much here to enjoy if i didn;t think so i would have scraped it already   just needs some tweaks and polishing and dumping the loony.        you dont need to graduate war college to learn how to do it   if you don't know et a consultant for some pointers  like basic or club chess (as oppose to GM)  club would be fine enjoyable and very challenging to most

 

 

[Hobo]

On 10/29/2021 at 9:38 PM, jimh said:

Lets start from my perspective  I spent an adult life in naval service, doing this for real. I have served on nuclear cruser, Large amphip (small carrier), fast combat support, 2 Nuc aircraft carriers ( Enterprise and GW) and a DD in a warfighting rate. I lived in CIC.    I had high hopes this would be a good tactical simulation requiring realistic tactics and not a typical   PlayStation BS game.

 

These are my thoughts...

1. Hire a retired naval officer as an technical tactical  adviser. 

This game has serious  tactical  deficiencies, no one with an ounce of experience can take some of the "Naval Academy" missios  as anything other then a bad joke by someone who knows nothing.  No officer in any real navy would command and take a major capital ship i.e. high end BB  1BB vs   3BB, 5 heavies, and 5 destroyer.   you cannot if invincible hold enough ordnance to accomplish that sinking them all .   fact is    This would never happen, ever.   not even close to realism (is the a john wick BB)    And no Naval command would place someone in charge who was so stupid to try.     The only thing remotely close would be the Bismark break-out ( she had CA PE with her, and they were not tasked with engaging and destroy the British navy)  they were tasked to break contact  and  avoid the main fleet and do commerce raiding,  they failed, Bis managed to sink the hood but was damaged enough for a mission kill,   was forced to return to port from damage we all know the stories ending.    When heavily outnumbered you disengage and run like hell   except the most  unique situations (e.g. Battle off Samar).  That isn't an academy mission it was getting caught with their pants down and trying not to be killed en mass.  This requires bb john wick and about as real .   

2. No ship is constructed or for that matter refit  for 1 specific mission, none ever.  Capital ships takes years to make and are major investments,  (other battleforce ships are not  cheap for that matter ) all ships are designed with numerous missions in mind.  and they are made well rounded,  maybe campaign mode with address this the NA should support that theory

3. I won't rant too much on the bugs,   i have seen and others have noted,   battery fire, fleets that  cant maneuver or hold station (tip allow the "admiral to assign  ship stations there is more to driving then line  abrest or line a stern  ) don't spin circles, run into each other and otherwise be usless.  torps that never shoot. but are deadly accurate  from max range,   don't start a long rang battle between heavies at 18km no one spams in at 18k with heavies, scrap the clock it isn;t a race, this isn't a video game  let us close maneuver and try gain advantage

 

4  ditch the AI building crap ships  use period class  models ie BB  CA  DD MTB etc  there are thousands to choose from. they were build as they were for sound reasons and it would be realistic.  

5. Check the combat calculator for buggs,  I have experienced on 5 occasions out of like 9 being engaged at +26km and the opposition scoring multi  1st salvo hits... seriously  the first shots are fired to bracket and deliberately fired at different elevations to range you  only when ranged do salvo togeather  you don't get 2-3 on target from a cold tube.  anyone that lucky needs to go to Vegas or Monte-carlo.  

 

There is much i could like about this game, graphics are great,  some battles  seem reasonably viable and enjoyably challenging .  Others are garbage.  there is no joy or challenge to be forced to play an unplayable sim.    dump the junk get real and you could  have something worth of my time and  money.  

 

 

 

With you on most of these, especially #4 AND #5.  I think they started far to ambitious.  Day one should have been a bunch of pre-planned existing ships and then once everything else was good add the ability to design your own.  I am excited for the campaign if they ever make it that far.

[jimh]

Hobo   exactly ...   

 

that was my point with the clown school   you don't send a BB vs 13 dd flotilla  u send  send 1ca, 2 cl and a few dd

you dont send 1bb vs 3bb,2ca and 5dd  you send a group  (bb ca cl and dd) based on what you can muster

if you cant do that now you don't  make the clown mission.  it is an insult to intelligence.   to do otherwise is not NA it is clown school and anyone honest and knowledgeable would know that 

either  let the player design the force composition ships  (by designing them or picking from a catalog)  i don;t mind spending hours working it up, but a catalog of prefab real designs would be fine too for faster startup.   

the point i hope i made was  you don't risk a capital ship to do something others are better suited to do.  BB and now CVN are jewels to be guarded jealously    a national asset, would anyone think send a bb vs a sub as training either , that is navys build escorts    (if we had subs)? that is again  clown school  heavies are made to deal with other heavies 

my points are to improve the game  not just bitch

[arkhangelsk]

Think of it this way:
Jimh: "I have designed the optimal ship to meet a wide variety of situations. It has secondaries, AAA, a torp belt and all the rest."
"Oh, I see. Just for reference, what would this ship look like if it is optimized only for Scenario A?"
Jimh: "I don't know. I refuse to build a ship optimized for only Scenario A. Scenario A is unrealistic."
"... how about if it is optimized only for Scenario B?"
Jimh: "I hadn't put a single ounce of thought on such a ship either. I think it's unrealistic."
"Why should I believe you actually know how to build an optimal ship to meet a wide variety of scenarios if you can't even answer my questions about ships optimized for only one scenario? What you know how to build is a "textbook" ship. You have no real idea of how important each component is - you just put them in because the textbook told you to put them or that's what other people did. When designing your ship, did you even take into account we won't be facing any planes? Have you considered how every secondary gun steals accuracy from the main armament and reduces the amount of armor you can put on the ship? Oh by the way, what is the optimal engagement range of your ship?"
Jimh: "Uh, I don't know. I've only tested my ship in 'realistic' ... that is to say even-handed scenarios. I know my ship can defeat another similar ship with ammo to spare."
"Well, if you had actually tried pitting your ship against multiple battleships no matter how unrealistic you think it is, you would have learnt that you could have done it using only half the ammo expenditure if you closed 5 kilometers, while still not taking a crippling amount of damage. Also, if you got rid of the secondaries, you can clobber the ship using only 40% of the ammunition because the main guns become more accurate!"
Jimh: "What if it faces a destroyer? We need anti-torp defense."
"If you have ever tried it, you'll know that your main guns need only five minutes before it lands a devastating hit on that stupid destroyer which is more than can be said if you just pepper it with secondaries."

[Tousansons]

That's not how ship design works.

But let's continue mixing reality and video games while ignoring technology, money and politics altogether.

[arkhangelsk]

On 10/31/2021 at 4:07 PM, Tousansons said:

Later naval academy teaches the bad habit of designing very specific ships for very specific encounters.

That's kind of the point. Rome wasn't made in a single day. First, you learn how to make very specific solutions to very specific problems because Naval Academy is hard enough trying to bull through with a "general purpose ship" often doesn't hack it. Once you've mastered that, if you like you run off to Custom Battles, where you can set up any scenario you want and see how much you need to "lob off" from your specialized ships to round them out (made easier now designs can be saved), or even make a general ship from scratch based on what you learnt in Naval Academy. It's even possible you'll decide the specialized ship is fine.

Then when Campaign comes out, you take everything you learnt and apply it to a scenario where there's limited tech, limited money and you are no longer volunteering to live with what you've built, but forced to. Eventually you figure out how to "round off" your ships even more, but you can only do so well because you've taken the time to learn the fundamentals in Naval Academy.

[o Barão]

1 & 2 - Academy missions are not there trying to simulate real life conditions. Those missions are for the player to overcome specific challenges with limited conditions using the creativity in the design process ( the major feature in UAD ).  They are not related to the campaign gameplay. If you want to simulate only real life conditions use custom battles. Imo they are fun and interesting, offering a different gameplay experience from what you see in custom and probaly in the future campaign.

4 - Players keep missing the point. UAD is not trying to be 100% realistic. The campaign will be a sandbox experience in alternative history. You don't have the London and Washigton naval treaties that limited what and how the ships where build as an example. Maybe we will have a similar thing in the campaign , who knows? The point is dont focus to much to what was build in real life and instead think in what could have been build in a world without restrictions. Is with this in mind that again the major feature in UAD comes to play, the design process. Also this explains why we have 19 or 20 inch guns or hulls with more than 100k tonnage.

 

[Wowzery]

Like any game, you have to balance how technical you get with ease of play.  Its a very hard balance to get and you will never please everyone.

So remember, this is a game, play it as a game.

[DougToss]

On 10/29/2021 at 9:38 PM, jimh said:

Lets start from my perspective  I spent an adult life in naval service, doing this for real. 

I appreciate seeing another vet here. I was Field Artillery and… lol if I’m having a tough time handling my disappointment with the gunnery here, you must be just about pulling your hair out.

 

Appreciate your feedback.

[madham82]

9 hours ago, o Barão said:

1 & 2 - Academy missions are not there trying to simulate real life conditions. Those missions are for the player to overcome specific challenges with limited conditions using the creativity in the design process ( the major feature in UAD ).  They are not related to the campaign gameplay. If you want to simulate only real life conditions use custom battles. Imo they are fun and interesting, offering a different gameplay experience from what you see in custom and probaly in the future campaign.

4 - Players keep missing the point. UAD is not trying to be 100% realistic. The campaign will be a sandbox experience in alternative history. You don't have the London and Washigton naval treaties that limited what and how the ships where build as an example. Maybe we will have a similar thing in the campaign , who knows? The point is dont focus to much to what was build in real life and instead think in what could have been build in a world without restrictions. Is with this in mind that again the major feature in UAD comes to play, the design process. Also this explains why we have 19 or 20 inch guns or hulls with more than 100k tonnage.

1+2: I agree they are definitely not simulating actual naval engagements. They also aren't very good at teaching concepts in the game either. Some of those very early missions are close to this, but it becomes obvious in the later missions they were just built to showcase hulls and "dribble" in some content to keep backers happy. The Devs really missed the opportunity here, as they should have introduced saves and custom battle enhancements first, then came out with these missions before the campaign. 

Speaking of the campaign, people are really going to be in for a rude awakening playing the campaign. As these missions will not help them understand basic design and fleet use during most of the time period. Think about how many of the missions have late era ships, then compare to how many deal with the pre-dread and WW1 timeframes. 

4: There's some truth to what you are saying, but there's also a lot of technological and practical knowledge that has nothing to do with treaties or alternate history. Gunnery works the same, tactics remain the same, national capabilities and infrastructure to for the most part. The only thing the treaties changed is what the end game looks like. Which again, is basically the last 10 years if the campaign ends in 1940. This is sandbox in the era of dreadnaughts, but not sandbox in that reality is thrown out the window. This isn't taking place on another galaxy far far away after all. It's earth 1890, some things just don't change. 

As for those 19 and 20" guns and 100K+ hulls, the community begged for those. I'm fine with them being included as development may have indeed went that way if unchecked. But at the same time, why were they prioritized in a game where such technology would only be feasible for a few years of the campaign. 

 

[jimh]

well hello Admiral

i was providing honest feedback, what you attributed i said,  i never said,  you sir are a liar.  I was told realistic 13 times but now it isn't realistic, that is know as fraud and goes hand in glove with liar however.  

 

So standby  for heavy rolls while ship comes about, set condition Z   standy-by batteries release.....

So Admrial    lets get salty...   do you prefer spray or green water?

Now exactly how many decks of warships have you walked?  I mean  have you ever been on a real warship steaming at sea and not just sailed a keyboard?

ever experienced a 46 degree roll in sea state 8? 

turning in very heavy seas do you speed up or slow down?

do warships have even or odd bladed screws?  what is turn count masking? Are you a sand-crab (aka a sideways crawling beach creature) a  pollywog or likely just a just a scupper trout? 

Care to explain what is a Williamson turn and it use? 

what is the difference between a door  a hatch? are dogs allowed on ships? 

how d you check for pressure ? why would you, how do you check for fire? 

what is the difference between H,I and K shoring? what does it do ever done it

what is a QAWTD?  

what is a sounding tube?  why is it important to know what does it is

what is the purpose of  maneuvering board?  what is cpa, CBDR  what do the mean? 

have ever used a mo board?

youdou realize with radar or passive including mk 1 eyeball  and TMA  (takes longer) you can get range course speed,

 best course to intercept at any speed or avoidance  and a   you know a junior seaman radar operator or QM can do this in their sleep.

why doesn't  the program display speed and course of a target when you have radar? kind of useful tactical info you think admiral

ever seen the southern cross or know what it is and why important?  

when was the last time ur buddies set circle W on you?

what is a monkey fist,  do you understand what i was just saying ?

 

so the NA  should be optimal designs  for  arcade john wick missions... 

 

I said and others concured  that the later  missions are not tactically viable, anyone can make a clown ship buy  why

ok i want a cloking device , plasma torpedos,  4 disrupters and warp /impulse drive.... Krik, scotty and spock can escort with NCC 1701 too please. 

one is about as real as the other  my scupper trout   you can make mission challenging and have people make soundly fitted ships   without going clown mode . 

better to explane what things are what they do  what the trade off are  what are the benefits and downsides are  and make well fitted ships into well considered tactical situations  maybe in the advantage maybe out classed     know when to withdraw and how to  however anyone who suggests what yu have i cannot take seriously  did you used to make video game ?

as for best naval games i have seen   Harpoon  base off SeaTag/NavTag  ( created for the real naval academy you know one with the goat... )

 

my experiences,  any naval buffs want a good read?    http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-031.php   i was a young 2nd class petty officer/watch sup in combat (CIC)    on said  cruiser  playing silent sam.  and yea that was pretty   real....  or Ivan thought  so anyway ( Ivan crapped his pants)  I left the naval service in 1997      do the math...   I don't clam the end all be all i know what real navys do  and do not do.    do you

 

if this is going to be an arcade game ill pass   now piss off

 

 

[DougToss]

Kerbal Space Program has all sorts of scenarios and tutorials as teaching tools - all grounded in what situations players will encounter in campaign. Even the most difficult are well within plausible worst case scenarios in campaign play. 
 

You have to teach people about good (textbook) warship design without them reading the textbooks, which means the tutorials must also encourage good design and not fantasy. For this to happen,  the tutorials need to be grounded. If you teach people to build outlandish ships, they won’t learn a damn thing about gunnery or fire control - just that more is better. It’s the opposite of teaching them for the campaign.

Edited November 2, 2021 by DougToss

[Commander Reed]

2 hours ago, DougToss said:

Kerbal Space Program has all sorts of scenarios and tutorials as teaching tools - all grounded in what situations players will encounter in campaign. Even the most difficult are well within plausible worst case scenarios in campaign play. 
 

You have to teach people about good (textbook) warship design without them reading the textbooks, which means the tutorials must also encourage good design and not fantasy. For this to happen,  the tutorials need to be grounded. If you teach people to build outlandish ships, they won’t learn a damn thing about gunnery or fire control - just that more is better. It’s the opposite of teaching them for the campaign.

I wouldn't even consider Naval Academy as an "Academy" right now. It's literally just "Here are some missions, build a crazy ass ship that defies all naval law and you'll probably win!"

[Cpt.Hissy]

"academy" is clearly an attempt at tutorial, that was repurposed to be a filler for backers after maybe 4 to 5 first missions.

[arkhangelsk]

On 10/31/2021 at 5:36 PM, jimh said:

before launch a short breif or allow to see the screenset up your desired  formations   stations  keeping  set up up your divisions before shell are dropping then sail into battle

Oh, I definitely agree with this one!

Quote

start at longer distance dont spam at 18km   you can speed up time if that is an issue,  allow to maneuver    into battle  don't  juts drop into one with shells flying   what were the lookouts and radar op asleep?

In many of the scenarios, you are already starting at a distance where you can't even see the enemy - you can't maneuver against an enemy you cannot see. You can practice this stuff in Customs Battles.

Quote

better ai station keeping and engagement 

I agree.

Quote

1st shots are ranging and bracketing before full batteries fire  or you waste ammo   no one hits 2-3 on a 1st shot at long range,  

It doesn't happen that often - and indeed the game is explicit about its ranging. Are you sure you didn't just fail to notice the initial ranging salvo which is forced to be a two-gun squirt?

Quote

build real type ships if aI cannot or pull ai from a libary of classes... no clown ships

Question: Are you winning against said "clown" ships? I have a bottom line - you can't call anything you can't beat a clown ship.

Quote

if in an overwhelmed mission  1 v 3many when ur out gunned and ot classed escape and evasion  and survive is winning 

You can choose to do that in the campaign. In Naval Academy, go attack them and see how far you can get. You don't learn anything from running.

Quote

ships are generalists what u tailor is the force composition to the intell  one of these 2 of thoses  etc... to make a force for the task at hand. (this maybe more campain  mode.

Yes, because Battleship A is exactly the same as Battleship B ...

I'm not sure if you are getting me. Here's the basic dilemma: Any scenario that can be beaten by a General Purpose ship can be beaten by a specialized ship set up for that one scenario. Thus you cannot learn which is better and why from that kind of scenario. So you up the challenge until it can only be beaten by a specialized ship. Then you might learn something.

I am fundamentally against textbook ships winning on principle. The game should model reality as best as possible, of course, but it should not be tuned to favor textbook ships. What fun is a game that says "You can build any ship you want, but forget it, the game is actually tuned so that your way to win is to build textbook ships?"

[jimh]

1st shot hit, yes multi-pal starts not just a one off  several times actually   opening shots 2x taking out my main battery   on the 1st salvo   i saw it shoot i saw it hit   that a bug or glich   i uninstalled and reinstalled it even.   

Ok your not understanding me 

ship A and ship B need not be exact they are not copies (well clasess are )    the hood the bismark, iowa, schornhost, kongo   etc  were not cookie cutter  they each had , their - and + comprises made one maybe faster  one better armor,  different gun set ups. but no ship has sailed for a single task .   there are differing designs and theory... but  more similar then different .   think of it this way the f14,15,18,f22 foxbat, fulcrum , flogger are pretty similar  too   they do similar roles even made by different AF's engineers but they have lots of overlap.      there is a reason real naval architects  build them as they do it isn't because of style. just same laws of physics.   a may have advantage here  b may have it there,,,, depends on a navy's chosen stragity

  A  bb is to fight BBs BC   but still needs to deal with  CL and Dd making a torp run while dealing with that BB/BC,  if his screen cannot manage  to keep the small fry at bay  or it is a cheap kill  but i would rather the CA/CL deal with the dd and let the bb concentrate on the line ship 

if you need needed a real example the CGN i served was tailored for AAW, ok  for subs a DD was the best choice, but we still had the 23 pair sonar, asroc and dual triple mk 46 tubes. ( harpoons to for other ships) hey  we wanted nothing to do with a sewer pipe generally.     we saw a sub we ran and called a Spruance p-3, s- 3 and the helos.  the Can  now she had a tail,  helo could literately stop in the length of the ship from flank (i rode one of these too)   the spruance  had Nato sea sparrow and CIWS   AAW wasn't there thing,  but still had self defense capability  but ASW where their bread and butter...   now  on that cgn we assisted a dd and helo to force a echo II ssn to the surface (and gave them a hell of a headache too  i suspect) we both pinged them  with active sornar for like 14 hours but the dd lead that engagement that was their thing...   and a sub is not  evading 2 ships a helo and and s3  all swarming them....    would we the cgn  have done it alone  not by choice...   push come to shove we could still engage  but the dd was a better choice.... that is what they were taylored to do

the kidd ddg same hull of a spruance dd was fitted as a double ender for aaw,   similar  i many respects but fitted for aaw mission off the same  hull not so much ASW

 if you look at any class of ship from any major navy   any era bb bc ca  cl dd   you would find within type a lot more more similar then different,,, the have their kinks depending on tactics and strategies  the navy prefers and needs...     as for the rest who wins looses   it is more about intel  leadership capts crew and training and a bit of luck.  find them,  fix them,  take the initiative hit and hurt them on your terms  first  and that goes a long way.  the usn shouldn't on paper win midway in 42 but they did, they had good intel found them and hit them 1st.  the japs were in a fight before they knew a cv was even out there.  

my point is all ships are generalists to a degree (except CVn and they never go alone ever)  all have some aaw, some asuw, some asw the amount depending on their primary mission

sets.     ships life is 30 plus years it needs to be built do they many missions  the country  need to do to support the nations needs  or it is useless. 

 

[monbvol]

I tend to agree with the navy man here.

In a campaign where you don't always get to dictate what scenarios your ship finds itself in and you have to suffer the consequences of your design choices over a span of years it would be much better to be taught not to overspecialize.  Finding a solid middle ground is key.

Also running away is often a very valid tactical AND strategic choice.  You may not learn as much as if you had stayed and duked it out but when the consequences of victory can still result in your ships being shot up and in serious need of dock time or the losses you sustain coming back to haunt you, never under estimate the value of declining the fight or running away after it has been joined.

[arkhangelsk]

On 11/3/2021 at 1:39 PM, jimh said:

1st shot hit, yes multi-pal starts not just a one off  several times actually   opening shots 2x taking out my main battery   on the 1st salvo   i saw it shoot i saw it hit   that a bug or glich   i uninstalled and reinstalled it even.

In how many runs? There is a small chance of hit. If it happens a lot OK but if it only happens a few times in every hundred it's fine.

And I understand you. In Campaign, you will get to make these multi-purpose ships. The difference that I don't think you are getting is how the game tries to train you to build the best multi-purpose ships.

As far as I can see, you are arguing that Naval Academy should limit itself to missions that you can beat by building general purpose ships, on grounds that this is what you should be building in campaign. The problem is that any mission that can be beat by a general purpose ship can also be beat by a special ship, or by badly built special ships, or by a general purpose ship that's not built as well as it could be. To ensure the mission can be beaten by a general purpose ship inevitably means an Easy mission. Is it possible for you to understand this?

2 hours ago, monbvol said:

I tend to agree with the navy man here.

In a campaign where you don't always get to dictate what scenarios your ship finds itself in and you have to suffer the consequences of your design choices over a span of years it would be much better to be taught not to overspecialize.  Finding a solid middle ground is key.

Also running away is often a very valid tactical AND strategic choice.  You may not learn as much as if you had stayed and duked it out but when the consequences of victory can still result in your ships being shot up and in serious need of dock time or the losses you sustain coming back to haunt you, never under estimate the value of declining the fight or running away after it has been joined.

Let me put it this way. How are you going to find the Middle Ground if you don't even know where the ends are? I mean the real end, not just assuming is emulating a real battleship.

Edited November 5, 2021 by arkhangelsk